This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I think that Lizard should be included here. It is a very recent thing, by the way. 78.151.50.102 ( talk) 19:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this place kept up to date? Simply south ( talk) 19:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering whether the recent edit war over whether a paragraph mentioning that Silk no longer uses organic beans belonged in the soy milk article might belong on the list? Twin Bird ( talk) 23:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I dont know about you but shouldn't articles under the target of severe editwars be locked down for a week? - Meomix - August 2010
The betting pool is now open on how long it takes Malamanteau, its mention (or not) on Xkcd, and the related discussion (I use the word loosely) at Talk:Malamanteau, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 12#Malamanteau, Wikipedia:Deletion review#Malamanteau (closed), and Talk:Xkcd#Malamanteau to qualify for WP:LAME. Assuming we're not already there. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 04:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be an edit war going on right now on Enceladus over whether an image is comparing the moon to the length of the United Kingdom, Great Britain, or the British Isles. The talk page is getting pretty heated. -- Patteroast ( talk) 21:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
here very amusing when i found it here by accident. Weaponbb7 ( talk) 22:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Not only was their a war over the name being Airplane/Aeroplane, but it had the lamest compromise ever. It is now at Fixed-wing aircraft. -- WikiDonn ( talk) 17:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Its been a dead issue for several months now since the antagonist was blocked, but was anyone else staggered at this edit war and this user's obsessiveness? [ [1]]? +|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ ( talk) 13:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
When the dispute right now is over, it should be listed on the page. It's pretty lame.... RECURSION ERROR! ( X! · talk) · @341 · 07:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't entirely see, though, the necessity of protecting it so quickly... Sithman VIII !! 18:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I just want to say I found this page completely hilarious and the bot wars section was particularly amusing. 207.35.67.130 ( talk) 17:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I removed it a few weeks ago, on the basis that discussion reaching a workable solution is a good thing, and should not be mocked. It's what we're trying to achieve. It was reinstated by an anonymous IP with mysteriously high knowledge of policy a bit earlier. I reverted that particular edit owing to a clear accusation of bad faith against me, but accept that there should be discussion on the matter (and that if it is reinstated with a tolerable edit summary, I should not do so again). I invite further comments from registered users. Regards, WFC ( talk) 13:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I wish to nominate List of European countries and territories, an edit war which I am currently a part of. The discussion on the talk page is very heated and has resulted in numerous insults and accusations. I've tried to be a mediator but the war is just annoying me now. The talk page has been re-arranged by someone but it is still all there, I think. Should England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland be listed as countries as well as the UK? Who cares? A small group of people seem to care a lot. McLerristarr (Mclay1) ( talk) 10:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, it reads: How about 'Gender of Gods', gotta remember those damn pagans.... is that an abbreviation for damned? If so, can someone be damned if they do not believe in a God who would do it? -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 12:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
We might add something from here ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#MOS:JP – Romanization for words of English origin) once the arbitration is over or dismissed. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 15:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought it went against Wikipedia's policies to make, shall we say... sarcastic comments in an artilcle. This is more befitting the Uncyclopedia and TV Tropes wikis. Not that I don't like it, it just seems a bit out of place here. 207.216.208.68 ( talk) 12:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Gadsby (novel), whether the article on this example of a lipogram should be written without the letter "e". This point has been debated since 2005, resulting in versions with and without the fifth letter being swapped back & forth, for 5 years when the matter ends up on Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. Where the dispute is settled for the moment, & where the dispute is nominated for inclusion in WP:LAME. ("It's an obvious violation of our policy on silly disputations and unworthy variations from our common goals - put it down in our log of such actions.") Anyone want to write the entry be as a lipogram? -- llywrch ( talk) 18:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Edit wars involving deleted pages, should they be removed from the list? Hey Mid ( contribs) 12:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice if some idea of the date of each war was given, or perhaps some links to especially chaotic revisions of the pages or talk pages. It would make for a much more interesting read. Some of these articles are very old and the wars happened quite some time ago, so it is difficuilt for an uninvolved person to find it in the history. - GeiwTeol 15:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
What's the largest number of closures that a single AfD has ever had? Not different AfDs -- I'm talking about closures of a single AfD. I was just involved in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Lee Loughner, which was closed as speedy redirect speedy keep speedy not delete (with one DRV thrown in the mix), but surely there have been better ones.--
Father Goose (
talk) 08:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The goings on at Wikipedia:Activist probably deserve documentation here. It's been taken to MfD, edit warred over, redirected, reverted, and now fully protected and taken to ArbCom. Fences& Windows 01:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
For ones that the subject or subjects are still alive, ask them! (except for maybe some of the bands, as they themselves would break up over the argument) 173.76.182.203 ( talk) 22:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
i'm sorry if i am asking something ridiculous, but the tiger edit war sounds really funny! does anyone have the talk history for it? 66.59.49.88 ( talk) 17:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Noticeably, there are two "External links" sections in this article. The first for edit wars involving external links and the second for actual external links related to the article. Should one of these be renamed to avoid ambiguity? Perhaps "External link wars" for the first, or perhaps "Actual external links" for the second (keeping in line with the humour of the article)? I'm thinking, of course, of the possible confusion when linking to a particular section of the page. – RobinHood70 talk 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
In how many ways can one say "POV pushing"? Sadly, while the long-term edit war there is surely lame, I can't think of any humorous way to present it. Any takers/ideas? Tijfo098 ( talk) 06:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
That dispute has resulted in over-the-top action by an admin at WP:AN. I thought it safest to treat the discussion there as some kind of elaborate joke: but it seems they might have been serious; and the inclusion on this page was taken as giving the dispute "official" status as egregiously lame, or something. Now, I'm the playful type myself. But this one was dangerous for a number of well-intentioned editors.
Noetica Tea? 12:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
With the release of the XKCD comic today that informed people about leading links that would eventually take a person to the "Philosophy" page, an extraordinary amount of edits resulted. I'm just wondering if this should be documented here. Swifty705 ( talk) 21:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Since there is no such word as "lamest", at least in British English, I suggest we move this page to "Most lame edit wars", which at least has the virtue of being a correct construction in all varieties of the language. ðarkun coll 21:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the process for getting something added to this list, but please, someone who does, please please get
this one on it.
Nomoskedasticity (
talk) 03:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
It gets more delicious. One of the noble edit-warriors is now edit-warring over the thread header (see the history for this talk page). It goes without saying -- really it does, on this particular talk page -- that "fully stupid" refers to the edit war, not the person. I have nothing but respect for Ms Moore, whatever her real birth name might have been.
Nomoskedasticity (
talk) 04:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_(241%E2%80%93260)/Mudkip_Meme_Inclusion_Debate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.211.189 ( talk) 22:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm about to conduct a major overhaul of the article. It seems to me that quite a few of these entries are unreferenced and may even be simple talk page debates. I'll try to delete all entries that are only talk page debates and add references for the actual edit wars. Inter change able| talk to me 16:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Bold, revert, discuss. Should it be Articles for Deletion or Articles for deletion? Cue lengthy back and forth debate, culminating in a Wikipedian declaring For fuck's sake, leave it alone.. Not an edit war per se but a pretty pointless debate over a pretty trivial thing. -- Ritchie333 (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the inclusion of Pluto here. First of all, this isn't something as trivial as a capitalization or punctuation argument; scientists have debated this, so why wouldn't editors? Not exactly "lame". But more importantly, the entry says the raging debate took place on the talk page. If that's true, then it wasn't even an edit war. How can something be considered a "lame edit war" when editors didn't edit war, but discussed as they were supposed to do? Joefromrandb ( talk) 01:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's settle it in the usual way, shall we? Because after all edit-warring is just lame. Straw polls are not lame. RfCs (if necessary) are even more not lame. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 21:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
For info, the UK quiz show University Challenge has just had a round of (three) questions about this page. Lugnuts ( talk) 20:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
99.181.131.190 ( talk) 07:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Isn't it weird that most of these edit wars concern nationalism? The reason these edit wars exist is because most people were educated in a school system that has heavy bias towards its own nationalism. You would think that what they teach you at school is all true and impartial. But that's not the case!
For example, the first time I came to Wikipedia, it was a real shock to me. I made significant contribution to Hungarian history based on what I learned at school. Only later did I see that most of my edits were reverted or changed because someone from Slovakia had a different opinion and he was taught something totally different at school than I was.
For instance, when Romania occupied Hungary for a brief time, in Hungary they call it the Romanian oppression, but in Romania they teach it as the Romanian liberation. Croatia is taught in Hungary as a province, but in Croatia it is taught as an independent country. In Hungary, Hungary is taught as the most significant part of the Hapsburg Empire yet in Austria, it's taught as a province. What's more, in Hungary I didn't even hear about the term Magyarization before because they simply don't teach that at school. In Slovakia, this is taught as a major element of curriculum.
What they teach us is that our country is great, our nation is great and that there are a few people who are our national heroes, and whenever "we" suffered it was unjust. For God's sake, even the Anthem of Hungary that every Hungarian has to know by heart is about the fact how great the nation is and that it suffered so much unjustly throughout the years. Nothing is ever mentioned about bad things that Hungary might have done to other nations. What's more, if a great man who invented great things hundreds years ago was born in Hungary, I'm supposed to feel proud of him, but if he was born a few kilometers on the other side of the border, I don't even know his name because it's not in the curriculum.
Why do I refer to another Hungarians as "us" but to a Slovak as "them". For the most part, most Hungarians do not ever leave the country so they live their life in the belief that they are great and other nations are bad. However, on the rare occasion when someone comes and declares that our national hero is from a different nationality, people get angry, because it strikes them at the heart of their national identity since all their life they have been taught to look up to these national heros, because it is them who make the nation great.
This is a LIE. It's a big fat lie. It seems the whole education system of most countries in the world is a just pretext to promote nationalism and control the population. There is a heavy dose of nationalist bias that presents the so called "facts of history" through a tinted glass.
Question is how can we tell people about this so that they won't start their mindless nationalist edit wars? It is extremely rare that they will recognize it by themselves, because they take what they have been taught throughout their lives as the one and only truth. And when these people meet someone else from different indoctrination background as them, that's when the edit wars start.
It took me about 1 year to realize that the Slovak editors aren't hostile and malicious, but only refute what they were taught at school and I'm refuting what I was taught at school, and that our different education systems shaped our identities and beliefs differently so that it is always us that the good guys are and the other ones are always the bad guys.
Therefore, I propose to create a Wikipedia page that warns new users about the indoctrination aspects and nationalist biases of their own education systems that define their identities and beliefs. We should tell them that just because someone is subject to a different nationlist propaganda, he is not malicious in any way, and therefore they shouldn't take the expression of his different beliefs as ad hominem attacks.
It would have helped me incredibly to learn this before I started editing on Wikipedia and not engage in non-sense nationalistic edit wars, which I did for almost a year before I realized what I was doing! All I was thinking about that I must teach these people the truth that I knew. So that's why in my opinion a Wikipedia page would be a great idea to teach new users about this, and as a result there would be a significant drop in edit wars! -- Bizso ( talk) 04:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if we could have a template tag that could be added to articles that have appeared on WP:LAME? To say something such as "This article is notable for being the site of one of Wikipedia's Lamest Edit Wars"? It would be (a) useful to warn readers they were about to read something that has been contested (b) funny.-- feline1 ( talk) 13:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
like wowwww me too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonu27 ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Department of Fun#A vote on the top 10 lamest edit wars ChromaNebula (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not 100% sure about this one, but there was some edit waring and a 1 year long discussion between May 2010 (4 edits on the 11th and again 6 edits on the 17th regarding the subject, with many more in between and after)and May 2011 regarding the nationality of the tennis player's parents. I found it not only lame because of how insignificant the detail is to his biography as someone actually tried to point out,but also the fact that the people involved ignored that on biography of living persons any detail minimally disputable or controversial should be automatically removed without further questions asked until, if ever, well sourced consensus is obtained. In addition a severe case of article ownership syndrome can be noticed. Learningnave ( talk) 08:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the page is very much POV when it comes to certain places, like when the birth year for Nancy Reagan was being discussed [I believe it to be perfectly correct a topic for a discussion/edit war]
Proposing to trim the article so that it is far more readable to anyone. Possibly include the number of edits and the time period, to just give a brief idea of the scale of the war?
TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 19:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
This is not an article and its not to be encyclopedic or abid by the rules. It is fun. The same way the entire Calvin and Hobbes comics collection is fun, or would you trim because 26 years of strips make it too long to read?! As for the edit wars they are not always lame because of the subject of the discussion, but because of the way discussions are carried out, usually involving total disregard for any and every possible wiki rule, trolling, personal insults, ressurecting of wars carried in battles in other possibly unrelated talk pages, sockpuppets, POV, reverting consensus decisions without bringing new reputable sources, article ownership syndrome, just to name a few.
As for the Nancy Reagan Date of Birth issue, the lame aspect is the fact it was re edited and ressurected a few times after the first apparently quite strong consensus was established. Yet I would agree that it does pale in lameness compared with most of the other examples. Learningnave ( talk) 12:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they are arguing about being barefoot. Including the veracity of "studies" done by people who catologue foot abrasions. You can't make this stuff up. Does this qualify as lame enough? -- Sue Rangell[ citation needed 23:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I suggest spilt it like BJAODN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.38.70.7 ( talk) 10:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
No way! If you do that ill revert you over & over again! just kidding. But I think this is more convenient as it is. Assistant N ( talk) 19:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Should we say please? Is it helpful to say you ought? Disputes over the precise wording of two sentences escalated into reams of heated discussion on the talk page, while dozens of reverts were racked up over the course of January. Bold, Revert, Discuss was invoked, leading to page protection when the editor who made the Bold edit asserted that 'Revert' referred to reverting the revert of that edit. An eventual calming down led to one editor editing one of the sections under scrutiny only for the reverting to begin again. Oh and some unrelated vandalism or test editing, in case things weren't confused enough. Seems to have calmed again, for now at least, but it's not resolved! All this over whether or not policy should say 'please'. CarrieVS ( talk) 19:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Not adding it yet, but consider this a nomination. Even aside from Randall Munroe calling it his favorite edit war, I think it's earned the honor. Jesse B. Hannah ( talk) 07:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I see there is an enormous discussion about how to capitalize Star Trek into Darkness, so much so that xkcd has lampooned the situation. I'm not sure whether it belongs here or not. -- Slashme ( talk) 11:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I can't believe I missed the previous section. Anyway, I decided to WP:Be bold and add it. -- Slashme ( talk) 06:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Was there an actual edit-war about it? I thought it was almost just a discussion. 109.91.242.208 ( talk) 00:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Probably isn't the best term to use to characterize the article. 174.115.220.57 ( talk) 21:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
One man's ableism is another man's political correctness. I oppose any rename, because, as noted at the top of the talk page, the title has been cited in many news sources, so in a way it is semi-notable and hence shouldn't be changed on a whim. If you find this article offensive, who knows what you'd make of Wikipedia:Complete bollocks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
This page, so long as it exists, is always going to have a degree of ridicule to it. It isn't a front-facing part of the project, but a niche humour page. Were "Wikipedia:Don't be lame" an official policy page or something, I'd agree that renaming it so that it didn't contain ableist language was probably a low-cost improvement to the project. But for a page whose basic point is "lol Wikipedians bikeshed over the most idiotic things", we can get away with a small amount of very-slightly-off-colour vernacular. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 13:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Making fun of handicapped people is hilarious! It's the Battlefield Earth of article names. Let's call this "Most Crip Downz Joey Lame Mong Retard Schizo Spaz Shortbus Sperg Window-licker edit wars". Then we can build on that and insult blacks, jews, gays, Muslims, etc. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
It's a bit early (best to wait until the case at WP:DRN closes), but Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Map projection looks like it will be a good LEW addition. Is a soccer ball a sphere? Is a sphere two-dimensional? Is the surface of a sphere 1-dimensional, while the surface of a ball is two-dimensional? Does the surface of the earth have a Fractal dimension? Do we believe the Oxford American Dictionary or Wolfram Mathworld? One way or the other, this opens up new dimensions of fighting over content. -- Guy Macon ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest we vote on the top 10 lamest edit wars in the history of Wikipedia. The purpose of this is to have a special section on the page where the lamest of the lamest edit wars are documented. The guidelines are below:
I hope this vote is a fun project. Good luck! ChromaNebula (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I have an add-on suggestion. in order to avoid the preferences of any one editor editor having too much weight, I suggest requiring at least five votes for a particular edit war before it is is put on the list. --17:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that there might be an error with the punctuation in 'B.A.T' [sic] in the 'Export House, that internationally renowned tower block in Woking' section under 'Places and other things' under the 'Ethnic and national feuds' section. I would like to know whether or not this was intentional. Udderfly ( talk) 08:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I revel at this articles "lameness"! Jdaniels15 ( talk) 13:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I strongly feel that this page is, in itself, an edit war. Should it even exist? Jdaniels15 ( talk) 14:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Editwar-ception.21:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC) 2601:4:2900:19:DC88:2AB1:79A2:35BB ( talk)
Is it edit-war or edit war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdaniels15 ( talk • contribs) 14:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
"Editwar" is perfect, in my opinion. 75 * 17:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
"But far more reliable sources use Genesis" is an incorrect myth perpetuated by proponents of Genesis and should be removed. I won't do it myself as I am involved in the current round of discussions on the subject. < Karlww ( contribs| talk) 02:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I think that Lizard should be included here. It is a very recent thing, by the way. 78.151.50.102 ( talk) 19:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this place kept up to date? Simply south ( talk) 19:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering whether the recent edit war over whether a paragraph mentioning that Silk no longer uses organic beans belonged in the soy milk article might belong on the list? Twin Bird ( talk) 23:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I dont know about you but shouldn't articles under the target of severe editwars be locked down for a week? - Meomix - August 2010
The betting pool is now open on how long it takes Malamanteau, its mention (or not) on Xkcd, and the related discussion (I use the word loosely) at Talk:Malamanteau, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 12#Malamanteau, Wikipedia:Deletion review#Malamanteau (closed), and Talk:Xkcd#Malamanteau to qualify for WP:LAME. Assuming we're not already there. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 04:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be an edit war going on right now on Enceladus over whether an image is comparing the moon to the length of the United Kingdom, Great Britain, or the British Isles. The talk page is getting pretty heated. -- Patteroast ( talk) 21:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
here very amusing when i found it here by accident. Weaponbb7 ( talk) 22:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Not only was their a war over the name being Airplane/Aeroplane, but it had the lamest compromise ever. It is now at Fixed-wing aircraft. -- WikiDonn ( talk) 17:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Its been a dead issue for several months now since the antagonist was blocked, but was anyone else staggered at this edit war and this user's obsessiveness? [ [1]]? +|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ ( talk) 13:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
When the dispute right now is over, it should be listed on the page. It's pretty lame.... RECURSION ERROR! ( X! · talk) · @341 · 07:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't entirely see, though, the necessity of protecting it so quickly... Sithman VIII !! 18:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I just want to say I found this page completely hilarious and the bot wars section was particularly amusing. 207.35.67.130 ( talk) 17:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I removed it a few weeks ago, on the basis that discussion reaching a workable solution is a good thing, and should not be mocked. It's what we're trying to achieve. It was reinstated by an anonymous IP with mysteriously high knowledge of policy a bit earlier. I reverted that particular edit owing to a clear accusation of bad faith against me, but accept that there should be discussion on the matter (and that if it is reinstated with a tolerable edit summary, I should not do so again). I invite further comments from registered users. Regards, WFC ( talk) 13:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I wish to nominate List of European countries and territories, an edit war which I am currently a part of. The discussion on the talk page is very heated and has resulted in numerous insults and accusations. I've tried to be a mediator but the war is just annoying me now. The talk page has been re-arranged by someone but it is still all there, I think. Should England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland be listed as countries as well as the UK? Who cares? A small group of people seem to care a lot. McLerristarr (Mclay1) ( talk) 10:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, it reads: How about 'Gender of Gods', gotta remember those damn pagans.... is that an abbreviation for damned? If so, can someone be damned if they do not believe in a God who would do it? -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 12:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
We might add something from here ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#MOS:JP – Romanization for words of English origin) once the arbitration is over or dismissed. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 15:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought it went against Wikipedia's policies to make, shall we say... sarcastic comments in an artilcle. This is more befitting the Uncyclopedia and TV Tropes wikis. Not that I don't like it, it just seems a bit out of place here. 207.216.208.68 ( talk) 12:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Gadsby (novel), whether the article on this example of a lipogram should be written without the letter "e". This point has been debated since 2005, resulting in versions with and without the fifth letter being swapped back & forth, for 5 years when the matter ends up on Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. Where the dispute is settled for the moment, & where the dispute is nominated for inclusion in WP:LAME. ("It's an obvious violation of our policy on silly disputations and unworthy variations from our common goals - put it down in our log of such actions.") Anyone want to write the entry be as a lipogram? -- llywrch ( talk) 18:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Edit wars involving deleted pages, should they be removed from the list? Hey Mid ( contribs) 12:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice if some idea of the date of each war was given, or perhaps some links to especially chaotic revisions of the pages or talk pages. It would make for a much more interesting read. Some of these articles are very old and the wars happened quite some time ago, so it is difficuilt for an uninvolved person to find it in the history. - GeiwTeol 15:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
What's the largest number of closures that a single AfD has ever had? Not different AfDs -- I'm talking about closures of a single AfD. I was just involved in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Lee Loughner, which was closed as speedy redirect speedy keep speedy not delete (with one DRV thrown in the mix), but surely there have been better ones.--
Father Goose (
talk) 08:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The goings on at Wikipedia:Activist probably deserve documentation here. It's been taken to MfD, edit warred over, redirected, reverted, and now fully protected and taken to ArbCom. Fences& Windows 01:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
For ones that the subject or subjects are still alive, ask them! (except for maybe some of the bands, as they themselves would break up over the argument) 173.76.182.203 ( talk) 22:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
i'm sorry if i am asking something ridiculous, but the tiger edit war sounds really funny! does anyone have the talk history for it? 66.59.49.88 ( talk) 17:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Noticeably, there are two "External links" sections in this article. The first for edit wars involving external links and the second for actual external links related to the article. Should one of these be renamed to avoid ambiguity? Perhaps "External link wars" for the first, or perhaps "Actual external links" for the second (keeping in line with the humour of the article)? I'm thinking, of course, of the possible confusion when linking to a particular section of the page. – RobinHood70 talk 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
In how many ways can one say "POV pushing"? Sadly, while the long-term edit war there is surely lame, I can't think of any humorous way to present it. Any takers/ideas? Tijfo098 ( talk) 06:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
That dispute has resulted in over-the-top action by an admin at WP:AN. I thought it safest to treat the discussion there as some kind of elaborate joke: but it seems they might have been serious; and the inclusion on this page was taken as giving the dispute "official" status as egregiously lame, or something. Now, I'm the playful type myself. But this one was dangerous for a number of well-intentioned editors.
Noetica Tea? 12:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
With the release of the XKCD comic today that informed people about leading links that would eventually take a person to the "Philosophy" page, an extraordinary amount of edits resulted. I'm just wondering if this should be documented here. Swifty705 ( talk) 21:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Since there is no such word as "lamest", at least in British English, I suggest we move this page to "Most lame edit wars", which at least has the virtue of being a correct construction in all varieties of the language. ðarkun coll 21:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the process for getting something added to this list, but please, someone who does, please please get
this one on it.
Nomoskedasticity (
talk) 03:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
It gets more delicious. One of the noble edit-warriors is now edit-warring over the thread header (see the history for this talk page). It goes without saying -- really it does, on this particular talk page -- that "fully stupid" refers to the edit war, not the person. I have nothing but respect for Ms Moore, whatever her real birth name might have been.
Nomoskedasticity (
talk) 04:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_(241%E2%80%93260)/Mudkip_Meme_Inclusion_Debate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.211.189 ( talk) 22:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm about to conduct a major overhaul of the article. It seems to me that quite a few of these entries are unreferenced and may even be simple talk page debates. I'll try to delete all entries that are only talk page debates and add references for the actual edit wars. Inter change able| talk to me 16:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Bold, revert, discuss. Should it be Articles for Deletion or Articles for deletion? Cue lengthy back and forth debate, culminating in a Wikipedian declaring For fuck's sake, leave it alone.. Not an edit war per se but a pretty pointless debate over a pretty trivial thing. -- Ritchie333 (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the inclusion of Pluto here. First of all, this isn't something as trivial as a capitalization or punctuation argument; scientists have debated this, so why wouldn't editors? Not exactly "lame". But more importantly, the entry says the raging debate took place on the talk page. If that's true, then it wasn't even an edit war. How can something be considered a "lame edit war" when editors didn't edit war, but discussed as they were supposed to do? Joefromrandb ( talk) 01:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's settle it in the usual way, shall we? Because after all edit-warring is just lame. Straw polls are not lame. RfCs (if necessary) are even more not lame. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 21:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
For info, the UK quiz show University Challenge has just had a round of (three) questions about this page. Lugnuts ( talk) 20:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
99.181.131.190 ( talk) 07:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Isn't it weird that most of these edit wars concern nationalism? The reason these edit wars exist is because most people were educated in a school system that has heavy bias towards its own nationalism. You would think that what they teach you at school is all true and impartial. But that's not the case!
For example, the first time I came to Wikipedia, it was a real shock to me. I made significant contribution to Hungarian history based on what I learned at school. Only later did I see that most of my edits were reverted or changed because someone from Slovakia had a different opinion and he was taught something totally different at school than I was.
For instance, when Romania occupied Hungary for a brief time, in Hungary they call it the Romanian oppression, but in Romania they teach it as the Romanian liberation. Croatia is taught in Hungary as a province, but in Croatia it is taught as an independent country. In Hungary, Hungary is taught as the most significant part of the Hapsburg Empire yet in Austria, it's taught as a province. What's more, in Hungary I didn't even hear about the term Magyarization before because they simply don't teach that at school. In Slovakia, this is taught as a major element of curriculum.
What they teach us is that our country is great, our nation is great and that there are a few people who are our national heroes, and whenever "we" suffered it was unjust. For God's sake, even the Anthem of Hungary that every Hungarian has to know by heart is about the fact how great the nation is and that it suffered so much unjustly throughout the years. Nothing is ever mentioned about bad things that Hungary might have done to other nations. What's more, if a great man who invented great things hundreds years ago was born in Hungary, I'm supposed to feel proud of him, but if he was born a few kilometers on the other side of the border, I don't even know his name because it's not in the curriculum.
Why do I refer to another Hungarians as "us" but to a Slovak as "them". For the most part, most Hungarians do not ever leave the country so they live their life in the belief that they are great and other nations are bad. However, on the rare occasion when someone comes and declares that our national hero is from a different nationality, people get angry, because it strikes them at the heart of their national identity since all their life they have been taught to look up to these national heros, because it is them who make the nation great.
This is a LIE. It's a big fat lie. It seems the whole education system of most countries in the world is a just pretext to promote nationalism and control the population. There is a heavy dose of nationalist bias that presents the so called "facts of history" through a tinted glass.
Question is how can we tell people about this so that they won't start their mindless nationalist edit wars? It is extremely rare that they will recognize it by themselves, because they take what they have been taught throughout their lives as the one and only truth. And when these people meet someone else from different indoctrination background as them, that's when the edit wars start.
It took me about 1 year to realize that the Slovak editors aren't hostile and malicious, but only refute what they were taught at school and I'm refuting what I was taught at school, and that our different education systems shaped our identities and beliefs differently so that it is always us that the good guys are and the other ones are always the bad guys.
Therefore, I propose to create a Wikipedia page that warns new users about the indoctrination aspects and nationalist biases of their own education systems that define their identities and beliefs. We should tell them that just because someone is subject to a different nationlist propaganda, he is not malicious in any way, and therefore they shouldn't take the expression of his different beliefs as ad hominem attacks.
It would have helped me incredibly to learn this before I started editing on Wikipedia and not engage in non-sense nationalistic edit wars, which I did for almost a year before I realized what I was doing! All I was thinking about that I must teach these people the truth that I knew. So that's why in my opinion a Wikipedia page would be a great idea to teach new users about this, and as a result there would be a significant drop in edit wars! -- Bizso ( talk) 04:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if we could have a template tag that could be added to articles that have appeared on WP:LAME? To say something such as "This article is notable for being the site of one of Wikipedia's Lamest Edit Wars"? It would be (a) useful to warn readers they were about to read something that has been contested (b) funny.-- feline1 ( talk) 13:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
like wowwww me too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonu27 ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Department of Fun#A vote on the top 10 lamest edit wars ChromaNebula (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not 100% sure about this one, but there was some edit waring and a 1 year long discussion between May 2010 (4 edits on the 11th and again 6 edits on the 17th regarding the subject, with many more in between and after)and May 2011 regarding the nationality of the tennis player's parents. I found it not only lame because of how insignificant the detail is to his biography as someone actually tried to point out,but also the fact that the people involved ignored that on biography of living persons any detail minimally disputable or controversial should be automatically removed without further questions asked until, if ever, well sourced consensus is obtained. In addition a severe case of article ownership syndrome can be noticed. Learningnave ( talk) 08:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the page is very much POV when it comes to certain places, like when the birth year for Nancy Reagan was being discussed [I believe it to be perfectly correct a topic for a discussion/edit war]
Proposing to trim the article so that it is far more readable to anyone. Possibly include the number of edits and the time period, to just give a brief idea of the scale of the war?
TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 19:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
This is not an article and its not to be encyclopedic or abid by the rules. It is fun. The same way the entire Calvin and Hobbes comics collection is fun, or would you trim because 26 years of strips make it too long to read?! As for the edit wars they are not always lame because of the subject of the discussion, but because of the way discussions are carried out, usually involving total disregard for any and every possible wiki rule, trolling, personal insults, ressurecting of wars carried in battles in other possibly unrelated talk pages, sockpuppets, POV, reverting consensus decisions without bringing new reputable sources, article ownership syndrome, just to name a few.
As for the Nancy Reagan Date of Birth issue, the lame aspect is the fact it was re edited and ressurected a few times after the first apparently quite strong consensus was established. Yet I would agree that it does pale in lameness compared with most of the other examples. Learningnave ( talk) 12:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they are arguing about being barefoot. Including the veracity of "studies" done by people who catologue foot abrasions. You can't make this stuff up. Does this qualify as lame enough? -- Sue Rangell[ citation needed 23:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I suggest spilt it like BJAODN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.38.70.7 ( talk) 10:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
No way! If you do that ill revert you over & over again! just kidding. But I think this is more convenient as it is. Assistant N ( talk) 19:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Should we say please? Is it helpful to say you ought? Disputes over the precise wording of two sentences escalated into reams of heated discussion on the talk page, while dozens of reverts were racked up over the course of January. Bold, Revert, Discuss was invoked, leading to page protection when the editor who made the Bold edit asserted that 'Revert' referred to reverting the revert of that edit. An eventual calming down led to one editor editing one of the sections under scrutiny only for the reverting to begin again. Oh and some unrelated vandalism or test editing, in case things weren't confused enough. Seems to have calmed again, for now at least, but it's not resolved! All this over whether or not policy should say 'please'. CarrieVS ( talk) 19:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Not adding it yet, but consider this a nomination. Even aside from Randall Munroe calling it his favorite edit war, I think it's earned the honor. Jesse B. Hannah ( talk) 07:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I see there is an enormous discussion about how to capitalize Star Trek into Darkness, so much so that xkcd has lampooned the situation. I'm not sure whether it belongs here or not. -- Slashme ( talk) 11:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I can't believe I missed the previous section. Anyway, I decided to WP:Be bold and add it. -- Slashme ( talk) 06:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Was there an actual edit-war about it? I thought it was almost just a discussion. 109.91.242.208 ( talk) 00:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Probably isn't the best term to use to characterize the article. 174.115.220.57 ( talk) 21:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
One man's ableism is another man's political correctness. I oppose any rename, because, as noted at the top of the talk page, the title has been cited in many news sources, so in a way it is semi-notable and hence shouldn't be changed on a whim. If you find this article offensive, who knows what you'd make of Wikipedia:Complete bollocks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
This page, so long as it exists, is always going to have a degree of ridicule to it. It isn't a front-facing part of the project, but a niche humour page. Were "Wikipedia:Don't be lame" an official policy page or something, I'd agree that renaming it so that it didn't contain ableist language was probably a low-cost improvement to the project. But for a page whose basic point is "lol Wikipedians bikeshed over the most idiotic things", we can get away with a small amount of very-slightly-off-colour vernacular. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 13:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Making fun of handicapped people is hilarious! It's the Battlefield Earth of article names. Let's call this "Most Crip Downz Joey Lame Mong Retard Schizo Spaz Shortbus Sperg Window-licker edit wars". Then we can build on that and insult blacks, jews, gays, Muslims, etc. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
It's a bit early (best to wait until the case at WP:DRN closes), but Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Map projection looks like it will be a good LEW addition. Is a soccer ball a sphere? Is a sphere two-dimensional? Is the surface of a sphere 1-dimensional, while the surface of a ball is two-dimensional? Does the surface of the earth have a Fractal dimension? Do we believe the Oxford American Dictionary or Wolfram Mathworld? One way or the other, this opens up new dimensions of fighting over content. -- Guy Macon ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest we vote on the top 10 lamest edit wars in the history of Wikipedia. The purpose of this is to have a special section on the page where the lamest of the lamest edit wars are documented. The guidelines are below:
I hope this vote is a fun project. Good luck! ChromaNebula (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I have an add-on suggestion. in order to avoid the preferences of any one editor editor having too much weight, I suggest requiring at least five votes for a particular edit war before it is is put on the list. --17:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that there might be an error with the punctuation in 'B.A.T' [sic] in the 'Export House, that internationally renowned tower block in Woking' section under 'Places and other things' under the 'Ethnic and national feuds' section. I would like to know whether or not this was intentional. Udderfly ( talk) 08:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I revel at this articles "lameness"! Jdaniels15 ( talk) 13:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I strongly feel that this page is, in itself, an edit war. Should it even exist? Jdaniels15 ( talk) 14:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Editwar-ception.21:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC) 2601:4:2900:19:DC88:2AB1:79A2:35BB ( talk)
Is it edit-war or edit war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdaniels15 ( talk • contribs) 14:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
"Editwar" is perfect, in my opinion. 75 * 17:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
"But far more reliable sources use Genesis" is an incorrect myth perpetuated by proponents of Genesis and should be removed. I won't do it myself as I am involved in the current round of discussions on the subject. < Karlww ( contribs| talk) 02:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)